Not only that but we had fun making them together and we can choose our own sprinkles to use – the popping candy ones definitely went down well with the kids! We made something that genuinely tastes the same (to us at least) as the Starbucks Marshmallow Twizzles taste but our version cost around 75% less than the ones you can buy from Starbucks. I know this isn’t a complicated recipe and I could really have just shared it as a part of one of my five frugal things weekly posts but I wanted to give it a post of it’s own as it’s a great way to show your children how they can often recreate their own versions of things without the huge mark up that they’ll pay in the shops.
I left them to set in the fridge before taking them out and wowing Miss Frugal with our amazing bargain Marshmallow Twizzles. I cut some small potatoes in half and stuck the chocolate covered marshmallows into them to let the chocolate set a little bit before I added my sprinkles. Next I melted the chocolate (using the microwave in short blasts) and spooned the melted chocolate over each of the marshmallow kebabs. I basically just cut some wooden skewers in half and threaded three marshmallows on to each one. Even taking into account the sprinkles and toppings I used from our cupboard that’s still around £2.50 in total for the ingredients that I used to make 8 or my own version of Marshmallow Twizzles – 31p each. So I bought a 200g packet of marshmallows for £1 (luxury marshmallows if the packet is to be believed), a bar of cooking chocolate for 65p, and a bag of white chocolate chips for 49p. Rather than tell her not to spend her money on them anymore, I decided to make my own and show her just how much of a profit Starbucks were making on each one they sold (yes, I know I’m not taking into account any business overheads but I’m proving a point here -)). Now I don’t usually object to what she spends her pocketmoney on but when she’s paying £1.19 for three marshmallows on a stick covered in chocolate then I have to say something! But to have them branch out into making records, which would theoretically make them a force in the music industry, is just wrong.Miss Frugal and her friends love Starbucks and whenever they go shopping, they usually pop in for a round of iced caramel Macchiatos and Marshmallow Twizzles. Saying all that, I'm not virulently anti-Starbucks, and I daresay there aren't many Guardian readers who don't occasionally succumb - grudgingly or not - to the call of a Frappuccino or a Marshmallow Twizzle (an outrageously priced blob designed to be soaked in coffee). And there you go - we'll soon be graced by a label that views music as an adjunct to hot-beverage-drinking. After all, Starbucks can already claim to be a successful record retailer - sales of albums such as Ray Charles' Genius Loves Company, released by soul/jazz house Concord Records but only sold at Starbucks, have proved that people aren't averse to buying CDs in coffee shops. Is he likely to want his next record to be sold by the home of squashy leather sofas and cosy predictability?īut if McCartney won't sign, other major names will. But even if he were free, would an old 60s idealist like Macca really plight his troth to a company that's a byword for multi-national expansionism? Furthermore, the man is still a working musician who refused a Lifetime Achievement Brit Award because he considered it a prize for old fogeys. That may be easier said than done, given that both Parlophone Records and McCartney's own publicists said today that they believe he's still signed to Parlophone, his UK label since 1962.
0 kommentar(er)
